



SPKCIi 




/ 



SPEKCll 



HON. L. M. C0\, OF KENTUCKY 



DKL1TERED IN TllK 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 26, 18f.G, 



In defence of the p9unciples of the American Party, and the approacliiruj P^ndential 

Election. 



Mr. Chairman : I did not come to the House 
to-night to make a speech. Indeed I had no such 
intention when I entered this Hall. Hut .eome re- 
marks have fallen from my colleague [Mr. Jewktt] 
which I think call for a reply, and which 1 may as 
well answer now as at any other time. Of course I 
know nothing of what has b:en said by my col- 
league before I came into the House. But his ob- 
serratlons which have fallen upen my ear indicate 
his opinions of the political creed o( the American 
pai'ty, and his feeling-^ of uncompromising hostility 
and bitterness towards what he calls an organiza- 
tion rather than a party. They illustrate, too, the 
notions of political proscription which my col- 
league and the party to which he belongs enter- 
tain, and expose the utter fallacy of the charge of 
proscription and unconstitutional designs against 
the American party. My colleague repeats the 
oft-repeated and oft-refuted charge against the 
American party that their principles are unconsti- 
tutional and anti-republican — and the specifications 
of this charge are that the American party intends 
to modify the naturalization laws so as to extend 
the time of probation which the foreign immigrant 
must undergo before he can be invested with the 
rights of citizenship, and that the members of that 
party will not support Roman Catholics in their 
aspirations for political station. Before I notice 
the argument to sustain the assertion that the 
American party is engaged in an effort to deprive 
a portion of their fellow-citizens of their constitu- 
tional r'ghts, I will examine some observations of 
my colleague which require a separate criticism. 
He says, first, that the idea that the Roman Catho- 
lica entertain the doctrines imputed to them by 
the American party is a mistake, growing out of a 
misunderstanding of their true sentiments. This, 
air is a fair and legitimate modi- of stating politi- 
cal differences of opinion. But in tlie progress of 
my colleague's remarks be grew more heated, and 
indulged the passionate ascerbity which has char- 
acterized the opposition of the Democratic party 



towards the American party from its otganization. 
Under the influence ot this leelirp, my colleague 
declares that the doctrine imputed by ihe Ameri- 
can party to the Roman Catholics is- a gross slan- 
der, which he hurls back in the tcth of the slan- 
derers. Now, I ask, in calm and dispas.sionate 
reason, whether an honest mistak.j in judgn)ent is 
a slander i' Is that which a party or a number of 
persons believe to be true as a niatt>.T -of opinion 
held by another party or body of people a t lander ? 
And does it comport with that boist.jd Democratic 
Uberality and toleration thus to chaiacterize, in the 
halls of legislation, opinions honestly entertained^ 
even if erroneous, as unmitigated slatidcry 

Mr. JEWETT. I ask my colleague what he- 
means by an honest mistake? 

Mr. COX. I am not at all sut pri-'ed ar mv col- 
league's zeal in defence of Roman Ciitholics", nor 
that he should fight his battles over again. He 
had a hard contest to obtain the sear, he now oc- 
cupies, lie was sustained by .). lar;;.; body of 
Catholics, and he feels that gratitude to wards them 
which men usually manifest towards tbo^'e who 
vote for and sustain them, and ho declares here 
that to discharge in part the duty he owes them, 
was one of the inducements which prompted him 
to speak this evening. All this is very proper. 
But in discharging his duty to his friends, he ought 
to do justice to others, and allow them at least that 
presumptive honesty and sincerity in their opin- 
ions which the law imputes to every citizen. When 
my colleague is free from the party feeling which 
pioinpts expressions of severe denunciation against 
political opponents and left to the dictate* of his 
le,i,'al reason, he is compelled in justice ajid truth 
to udmit, in substance, that the charge of pioscrip- 
tiou against the American party is wh')lly unfound- 
ed, lie says that the American party is uot ob- 
noxious to the charge of proscription. A::d I now 
nail that chargi of proscription, so often made by 
th orators and press of the Democrati: party, 
with the nitprobation of my oolleacrie, to the 



;/>' 



counter, as an erroneous and unfounded allegacion. 
There is not, then, any proscription in the creed 
of the American party. That ia aclinowledged by 
my colleague. Let it go to the country and to the 
people, that it has been asserted here to-night, by 
my coilcague, that the American party in the 
measures it proposes, is not prescriptive. This 
adfnission recalls more than half of the thunder 
which has been hurled against the American party. 
But my colleague says the members of the Amer- 
ican {larty are conspirators to do mischief. 

Mr. JE WETT. I am satisfied that my colleague 
does not desire to do me any injustice. 

Mr. COX. Certainly not, Mr. Chairmr/i — and 
if I have raisunderatood my colleague, I desire him 
to explain and correct me. 

Mr. JEWETT. When I spoke of the Catholics, 
I spoke without any reference to my constituents, 
and said that the oaths and obligations, taken and 
subscribed by the Know Nothing party, might not 
be, in strict speech or in estimation of law, pro- 
fictiption as against Catholics, but that it was a con- 
spiracy. I made no concession in legard to their 
proposed legislation in regard to naturalized citi- 
zens. 

Mr. COX. My friend used the term proscrip- 
tion in a leg.il sense. He is a lawyer, and well 
veri«d,iiU(l profoundly leau la that abstruse sci- 
ence, and he knsw when he examined the avosved 
principles of the American party in the light of 
that science that the charge of proscription was 
but the denunciation of party malevolence. Hence 
he admits that the American party is not proscrip- 
tive in the technical meaning of that term. Well, 
sir, that is the only meaning of that term whica 
has any application to party principles and inten- 
tions — and therefore the American party has been 
acquitted of that charge by my colleague. But 
my colleague says the members of that party are 
conspira: ».■-'. I do not apply the couplets which 
I am about to quote to my colleague, but to that 
speciefl cf argument : 

'"I hate the man who builds his name 
On ruins of another's fame — 
Thus prudes, by characters o'erthrown, 
Imagine that they raise their own." 

He says we are conspirators — but the Demo- 
©ratic party, to whicli he belongs, is an honest and 
IMitriotic party. The members of the American 
party, composed of his fellow-citizens, born on the 
same soil, many of them living in the same State, 
enjoying as high reputation for moral integrity and 
personal virtues, are conspirators in a deep-laid 
coQspiracy to do mischief. Is that the liberal and 
tolerant language of a statesman ? Is that the 
language and the policy which should characterize 
political opposition of one party against another? 
— of one citizen against a large portion of his fel- 
low-citizena ? Is it not, rather, the extravagant 
and excited denunciation of party bigotry and par- 
ty tyranny, which requires not only conformity to 
piatforms, but absolute obedience to all political 
eommands? I charge no man, in the absence of 
siay evidence, with an intention to do mischief to 
liie coimtry. If my fellow-citizen have opinions 
he has a right to express them. If he believe par- 
ticular measures would promote the welfare of the 
coantry, h« baa the right and It ia his duty to use 



every proper influence to carry such measures in- 
to practical operation. May my tongue cleave to 
the roof of my mouth, rather than denounce a por- 
tion of my countrymen as conspirators to do mis- 
chief, simply because of their holding political 
opinions different from those entertained by the 
party with which I co-operate. Now, sir, I ask 
my colleague if he would vote for a Know Nothing, 
orAmerican? (Heanswersthathowouldnot.) Why 
not? Because of their opinions. I do not charge him 
with any illiberality in this, because he has a right 
to cast his vote for the person whom he thinks 
best qualified for the proposed office, but because 
I exercise the same privilege which he claims and 
which I award to him under the Constitution and 
the laws, I am charged with proscription by near- 
ly the whole Democratic party and press, and with 
conspiracy by piy colleague ! Why, sir, my free- 
dom from' bigotry and intolerance is as far supe- 
rior to the narrow pathway marked out by the 
Democratic party for its votaries as the great high- 
way of republican truth is to the sinuous meander- 
ings of party ambition. I am a member of the 
American party, and ^^et I tell my colleague, that, 
notwithstanding all the abuse, all the illiberal de- 
nunciation, all the extravagant and malevolent 
charges wilh which that party has been assailed, I 
could, and wouid vote lor a uioinber ol his party, 
if I thought the true interests of the country re- 
quired me to do so. I did, sir, in the effort to or- 
ganize this House, at the commencement of the 
session, and so did nearly all the members who co- 
operate with me, vote for several Democratic gen- 
tlemen for the speakership. My colleague and the 
members of the Democratic party could never ex- 
hibit such a sacrifice of personal feeling even to 
prevent the most disastrous consequences. During 
the contest (or the speakership, it wiU be remem- 
bered, that one of the mo^t distinguished leaders 
of the Democratic party [Mr. Howell Cobb] de- 
clared on this floor, that he would never cast his 
vote for a member of the American party. That 
is Democratic liberality. That is the very essence 
of party intolerance on the part of that party which 
denounces the principle of intolerance as anti-re- 
publican. I do not charge the Democratic party 
with being proscriptive, however ; but I charge 
that there are a great many gentlemen of that 
party who seem to believe that the Constitution 
and the laws, religious and social, moral and do- 
mestic virtues, ail concentrate in that party, and 
whenever a man opposes the objects of the ambi- 
tion of that party, he arrays himself against every 
civil, religious, and social right. 

I come noi, Mr. Chairman, to the arguments of 
my colleague to sustain his charges against the 
American party. He stated that he had never 
been able to obtain from the leaders of that party 
the exact definition of their principles and inten- 
tions. That in the discussions he had had with 
gentlemen on these subjects, they had always de- 
parted from the true issues and questions involved 
and gone off upon others not called in question. 

Mr. JEWETT. My colleague does not exactly 
understand me. I stated that in discussing these 
questions previous to the National Convention, it 
was promulgated that no man, or body of men, 
had the right to speak for that party. That it 
spoke for itself and not by any leader. That is it. 



i 



Mr. COX. I suppose, Mr. Chairman, that my ' 
colleague, after coming to the conclu.sion that the 
American party had no rei)ruscntative to k:pi ;ilv for ' 
it, thought tliat it.-< adverHarii.-rf and op|)aneiits | 
ought to assume that right, and spcad its >irinci- ' 
ciples before the people. But my Iriond ^hall find 
one on thi.^ occasion at least, ready and willing, in 
an humble' way, to vindicate the pure rep\ibliean 
principles of that party, and re.-^cuo them Ironi the 
misrepre.seutatioiifi of party hate. Sir, the Amer- 
ican party, so far from sin inking from a defence of 
its true principles and purposes, have met their 
accuser.? and tiaducers in open, nianly debate, and 
so far as I have heard, have n ver attemj)ted to 
evade the exposition of their principles, or at- 
tempted to combat the aii:;uments of their oppo- 
nents with vituperation, denunciation and abuse. 
IIow have they been met? It is acknowledged in 
all polemics, that tlx* only fair mode of treating an 
opponent, is to allow him to state for him.self his 
opinions, principles and intentions. If bis creed, 
thus stated, is o jectionable, the rights of free dis- 
cussion allow the opponent to point them out and 
demonstrate their tendency and elTect. Put, in- 
. stead of this mode of meeting the American party, 
the whole Democratic press and the oratois of 
that party in this llall, and before the people, liave 
arbitraiily assumed that the American party held 
certain doctrines, and then proceeded to dem)unce 
the opinions which they thus imputed to that 
party, but which tl'at paity repels with abhorrence 
and disgust. The charges of proscription, of the 
intention to deprive foreigners of their civil rights 
— of holding doetrines contr:!ry to the Constitu- 
' tion, and of conspiracy to do mischief — all proceed 
from the same source — the bitter opponents of the 
American party ; and have nothing to uphold them 
but bold and arrogant assertion, aid are dispelled 
by the touch of reason and truth, like morning 
vapors before the rising sun. I will notice, for 
a moment, their charges as to foreigners and 
€atholics. As to foreigners — the American party 
lielieving that the period required before an alien 
ghall be naturalized and investt-d with the rights 
of citizenship ought to be extended — propose to 
modify th • naturalization laws, and re(iuirc a 
lou!;er residenc' ; and al.=o, to provide against an 
evasion of the law, so as to prevent the naturali- 
zation of persons contrary to the true inter.t and 
spirit of t!ie laws. My collei^gnc surely does not 
deny the constitutional power of Congress to mod- 
ify these laws. He is too good a lawyer to ques- 
tion this power. It is expressly conferred by the 
Constitution, in these words — " the Congress shall 
have power to establish a uniform rule of naturali- 
y^tion ;" and has be-n exercised, from the organi- 
zation of the Federal Government. Sometimes 
•one period of time has been provided by Congress 
before a resident foreigner could bo admitted to 
the rights of citizenship — and another period has 
been fixed at other times. Since 18<i'i, I believe 
it has remained at five years. But the iraturaliza- 
tion laws have been changed in many other partic- 
ulars ; and no man has ever called in question the 
ample power of Congress o^'er the subject 

The citizens of the country filming an indepen- 
dent political government, havii the absolute right 
• to the soil, and are free to make their govenmient 
" >onforai to their own notiojis. No other nation 



or ]>(opIe have any political rights within their ter- 
ritorial dominions. 

It is true thai otiicr nation."! and members of 
other States, as doscendants from a common pa- 
rentage, have a right to receive humanity, hospi- 
tality and kindness fiom all their fcllDw-meii. But 
these are right.-' of imperfect oi)lig!iliou, and are 
not of a poliiicrti or legal nature, and caimot be en- 
forci-d by the la«'s of the country. But wii n you 
consider constitutional and legal rights — such an 
those which attach to a man as a citizen — all po- 
litical writers and all goverimients agree, that no 
foreigner possesses a claim to any of these rights 
in any government of the civilized world outside 
of that to which he; owes allegiance. 

The government has the perfect right to fix the 
terms on which foroignerfl shall ho naturalized. If 
I believe th:it the condition should be ten years' res- 
idence, and my colleague believes it should be but 
five, the difference between us is merely as to the 
time, and not as to the right of the alien, or the 
power of the government. This difference of opinion 
as to the expediency of a particular time of proba- 
tion wh'ch foreigners should undergo before be- 
coming citizens, is a legitimate subject for discus- 
sion. But it is a question of expediency alode, 
and not of power or right; and I ask my colleague 
and all reasonable men, if there is anything im- 
proper in my opinions — anything which can ju.5tify 
the charge of conspiracy — anything calculated to 
work mischief, or to retard the march of the coun- 
: try in the way to inconceivable greatness, civiliza- 
' tion and true national glory V But it is said that I 
exclude the alien-born from office, by withholding 
my suflrage from him. This I have a right to do, 
j even towar^ls ray native-born fellow-citizen, as m^ 
j right of suffrage has been reposed in my hands to 
enable me to preserve my liberties and promote 
the happiness of my countrymen, and no man can 
i claim that he is entitled to it as a right If I per- 
I ceive two great parties in the country so nearly 
I divided in strength, as to enable the foreign popu- 
lation to decide the issues of elections, and dictate 
to the native freemen of the country their gover- 
i nors and their laws, and should feel it ray duty to 
! endeavor to unii,e my countiymen in the purpose 
! of lestoring the control of public aflfairs to the na- 
I tive-born, would not my oVject be approved by 
every sentiment of patriotism V To accomplish 
this object it becomes necessary to remove the 
tempations to barter the rig'ita of freemen for the 
votes of the fbreign population, and for the time 
being, to confine my suffrage and political patron- 
age to my native-f)orn countrymen, until in truth 
and in fact, as w^ell as in name and appearance, 
America shall be ruled by Americans. There is 
no injustice done to the foreign resident citizen by 
this policy. He is protected in the rights of per- 
son and property, and hia industry rewarded by 
competency and the esteem of those who know 
him — can he, or ought he to ask more ? Ho is 
not excluded from oflice because of any personal 
hatred or prejudice ; but because the number of 
immigrants from the Old World, who are unac- 
quainted with the nature of our institutions, is 90 
great, and the disposition of parties heretofore hag 
been so prone to obtain their suffrage by means 
calculated to sap the foundatiq|i of our institutiona ; 
and instead of public virtue for their support, sub- 



Stitute the will of a multitude of strangers to our 
CoDSfitution and laws, that this policy has bi!come 
absolutely necessary to preserve (he blessings of 
free government, and transmit them as an inher- 
itance alike to the native-born children of the for- 
eigner and the Ameiican citizen — no right which 
naturalized citizens now enjoy or possess under 
the Constitution, will be disturbed or impaired by 
the American party. 

My colleague says there is no necessity for 
awakening this home-sentiment of protection to 
American rights. That the States have the right 
to establish the quahfications of voters ; and that 
if the Federal Government should prolong the 
term of probation for the alien before he can be 
naturalized, the States might admit him to vote at 
a shorter period, and thus defeat the whole political 
policy of the naturalization laws. I do not intend 
now to enter upon a constitutional argument. But 
I will say, that, as I understand the Constitu ion, 
wherever any power is exclusively conferred on 
Congress, when Congress shall choose to exercise 
it, that exercise of jurisdiction divests the States 
from the right to exercise the same power in con- 
travention of the acts of Congress. The States have 
all agreed, by the Constitution, that Congress shall 
have power to pass uniform laws on the subject of 
naturalization — so that no ahen can become a cit- 
izen of the United States, except in the mode 
provided by Congress. The question then arises 
whether a State can confer political privileges and 
the right of suffrage upon a forei<;ner, not a citi- 
zen of the United States, and not qualified for 
naturalization under the laws of Congress. My 
opinion is, that a State has no such powers — at 
least so far as the right to elect officers of the 
Federal Government is concerned. But, sir, there 
is no force in this position of my colleague. The 
General Government is constituted by and operates 
iipon the same people which constitute the objects 
of the State governments; and if the principles of 
the American party are correct and expedient, let 
them be appHed both by the Federal aud State 
Governments within their own respective jurisdic- 
tions. But ray friend says, we do not understand 
the true intent and meaning of the existing laws 
of naturalization. He says that after five years' 
residence we conclude the foreigner is entitled to 
citizenship. But not so. He has merely the right 
to be a candidate for citizenship ; and that the 
court, before whom he appears and demands to be 
naturalized, must be satisfied that he is well affect- 
ed towards the institutions of the country ; and 
this, my colleague says, cannot be the case until 
lie understands the nature and principles of our 
Government. There is much force in this posi- 
tion ; and if such interpretation of the naturaliza- 
tion laws should be enforced by the tribunals au- 
thorized to grant letters of naturalization, it would 
more efi'ectually exclude the foreign population 
from the ballot-box than any measure proposed by 
the American party. By this constrHctiou of the 
laWj the courts would not only have to judge of 
the evidence as to time of residence, good beha- 
viour, and submission to the laws ; but each ap- 
plicant would be subjected to an examination 
touching his knowledge in t^o science of civil gov- 
ernment, and especially the Government of the 
Uaited States — a science which has eluded the in- 



vestigation of the greatest and most cultivated in- 
tellects — and a government whose principles are 
poorly comprehended even by many in high po- 
h'tical station. 

If my colleague should press his construction to 
its full meaning, it would forever exclude nine- 
tenths of the foreigners, who become residents of 
the country, from the balloi-box. I prefer a pe- 
riod of time, injustice both to my countrymen and 
to the foreigners, after which his submission to 
the laws, and peaceful residence, shall be taken 
as sufiicient evidence of his republican principles 
and qualifications to vote. I prefer it, because of 
the vagueness and impracticability of the rule laid 
down by my colleague, and because of the temp- 
tation to partisan judges to evade its meaning. 
We know that now, in many places, the only 
qualification required by the judges, as to being 
well affected towards the institutions of the coun- 
try, is, that the applicant will support the party 
to which the judge belongs. To the remarks of my 
colleague as to paupers and criminals cast upon 
our shores from the Old World — I say, we should 
repel them, with all the power of the State and 
Federal Governments. We need not stop to de- 
bate the constitutional power of Congress, until 
we see whether we agree as to the expediency of 
preventing such immigration to our shores. I put 
the question to my colleague, whether he believes 
in the expediency of exercising the power to repel 
from our shores paupers and criminals from Eu- 
rope, and to prohibit their immigration ? 

Mr. JE WETT. If I had the time, I was pre- 
pared to show to my colleague and this committee 
that nearly every State in the Union has stringent 
and efficient laws upon the subject. 

Mr. COX. That does not answer my question 
at all : nor is it important to me whether he an- 
swers it or not. Whether my colleague agrees 
with me or not I have not a doubt of the duty of 
the Federal and State Governments both to use 
every constitutional power to prevent our shores 
from being flooded with a population sent from the 
prisons and lazer houses of Europe — persons who 
had become nuisances and pests to their native 
country — refugees from justice — criminals pardon- 
ed on condition of transportation — such as have, 
by a combination of European governments to rid 
themselves of such annoyances, been thrown upon 
our shores by thousands. 

I come now, Mr. Chairman, to the objection to 
the American party, because of its exclusion of 
Roman Catholics, and will inform my colleague 
what are the principles of the American party on 
this subject, as I understand them. The phrase 
Hainan Catholic the American party understands, 
designates a person who believes in the doctrine 
of the Church and acknowledges the supremacy of 
the Pope of Rome. Mv colleague is sufliciently 
conversant with the subject to acknowledge that a 
portion of the members of the Catholic church, 
even in Europe, deny the supremacy of the Pope, 
and in that particular protest against his power.-:— 
The terms Roman Catholic are applied to persons 
who acknowledge the Pope as Vicegerent of God 
on earth, who has absolute power over the con- 
science of every child of the church. That such 
power is claimed by the Pope and Church of Rome, 
cannot be denied in the face of the truth. I do 



uot aisert that the Pope claima civil jurisdiction 
a9siich outside of the Papal St;ttf3. Civil author- 
ity or jurisdiction, ax cuch, can only arise from the 
municipal govornnitnt either through the consiiiu- 
tio:i or the Ihws ; and a,s tlicri' is no provision of 
the Constitution or of any law luithorizing such a 
claim, it would be monstrous us well as foolish to 
assert the existence of any such power. But the 
Pope claims that he possesses the light and power 
to guide the conscience of every member of the 
church in any and all conflicts with the temporal 
or civil authorit.es under which he may live, and 
to dispense with his obligation to obey the laws 
and civil magistrates of the country whenever he 
(the Pope) shall determine that obedience to the 
law and magistrate would be contrary to the in- 
terests of holy church ; and whenever the Pope 
shall determine that any law enacted by the legis- 
lative power of the giiverument is contrary to the 
interests of the church, he can command his sub- 
jects to reJuse obedience, iind they must obf\v him, 
he being supreme director of the conscionces and 
clothed with a higher authority than the temporal 
magistrate. 

Extract i-rom Bull ok Pope Pius IV. 
" Whereas, therefore, according to the Council 
of Trent, all wlio may happen henceforward to be 
placed over cathedral and superior churches, or 
who may have to take care respecting these digni- 
ties, canonries, and any other ecclesiasticHl ben-^fi- 
ces soever, having the care of souls, are bound to 
make a public profession of the othodox faith, and 
to promise and swear that they will continue in 
obedience to the Chuich of Kome: We, willing 
that the same thing be observed likewise by all 
persons soever who shall have the charge of mon- 
asteries, convents, houses, and any other places 
soever, of all regular orders soever, even of milita- 
ry ones, under what name or title soever ; and be- 
sides, to the end that the profession of one and the 
same faith be uniformly exhibiteJ by all, and that 
one only, ani a certain form of it, be known unto 
all, we, willing that a want of our solicitude should 
by no means be felt by any cne in this particular, 
by strictly prescribing the tenor of these presents, 
we, by virtue of our apostolic autliority, command 
that the form itself be pubHshed, and be received 
and observed everywhere by those whom it con- I 
cerns, in consequence of the decrees of the conn- j 
cil itself, as well as the other parties aforesaid, and j 
that the aforesaid profession be made solenmly ac- I 
cording to this, and no other form, under the pen- i 
alties enacted by the council itself against all con- ! 
travening, under the following terms : 

Profex/tion and Oath. 
" I, N., with steadfast faith, believe and profess 
all and every particular contained in the symbol of 
faith which the imly Roman Church use, to wit : 
I believe in one fxod, the Father Almighty, maker 
of heaven and earth, of all things visible and in- 
visible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only be- 
gotten Son of God, and born of the Pather, before 
all eyes, God of God, light of light, very God of very 
God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the 
'''ather, by w^om all things were made, who for us 
men and for our salvation came down from heaven, 
and waa incarnated by the Holy Ghost from the 
Virgin Mary, and was made man ; was crucified 



also for m under PontiuB Pilate, suffered and wag 
buried, and lo^c again on the third dav according 
to the Scriptures, and at-ceuded into heaven set- 
teth at the right hand of the Father, and will again 
come with glory to judge the living und the dead, 
of whose kingdom there shall not bo an end ; and 
in the Holy (Jhost, the Lord and Giver of I,ifr| who 
procof ds from the Father and the Son, who 
together with tlie Father and Son is adorsd 
:i::d glorified, who spoke through the prophetd ; 
and one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I 
confess one l)aptism for the remission of sin.^, and 
await t 'C resurrection of the dead and the life of 
the world to come — Amen. 



" The apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and 
the other observances and constitutions of the 
same church, I most steadfastly admit and embiace. 
I likewi,>;e admit the Iloly Scripture according to that 
sense which our Holy Mother Church has held and 
does hold, who;:> province it ia to judge of the true 
sense and inter|iretation of the Holy Scriptures. 
Nor will I ever lUiderstand or interpret it, except ac- 
cording to the unanimous consent of the holy fa- 
thers. I abo profess that there ar« truly and 
properly seven sacraments of the New Law" insti- 
tuted by our Lord Jesus Christ, and necessarv for 
the salvation of mankind, though not all necessary 
to each individual, to wit : Baptism, Confirmation, 
The Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Or- 
ders, and Matrimony, and that they confer grace ; 
and that of these, Baptism, Confirmation, and Or- 
ders, cannot be reiterated without sacrilege. I also 
receive and admit all the received and approved 
ceremonies of the Catholic church in the solemn 
administration of all the above sacraments. I em- 
brace and receive all and every thing which in the 
Holy Synod ol' Trent has been "defined and deliver- 
ed concerning original sin and justification. I pro- 
fess, likewise, that in the mass is offered to God a 
true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living 
and the dead ; and that in "the most holy sacra- 
ment of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and 
substantially the body and blood, together with 
the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and 
j that there takes place a conversion of the entire 
substance of the bread into the body, and of the 
entire substaiice of the wine into the blood, which 
conversion the Catholic church calls transubstanti- 
ation. I also confess that under one kind alone, 
Christ is taken whole and entire, and a true sacra- 
ment. I steadfastly hold that there exists a pur- 
gatory, and that the souls there detained are as- 
sisted by the suffrages of t*jie faithful. In like 
manner, also, that the saints reigning along with 
Christ are to be venerated and invoked, and that 
they offer up prayers for us, and that their relics 
are to be venerated. I steadfastly assert that the 
images of Christ and of the Virgin Mother of God 
and, in like manner, of their saints, are to be kept 
and retained ; and that due honor and veneration 
is to be awarded to them. I also maintain that 
the power of indulgences has been left by Christ 
in his church, and that the use of them is most 
wholesome to the christian people. I recognise 
the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church as 
the mother and mistreis of all churches ; and I 
promise and swear true obedience to the Roman 
Pontifi; successor to Saint Peter, Prince of the 
Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ. All other 



6 



things also delivered, defined, and declared by the 
sacred canons and excumenical councils, and par- 
ticularly by the Holy Synod of Trent. I undoubt- 
edly receive and profess ; and at the same tune all 
things contrary, and any heresies soever condemn- 
ed by the church, and rejected and anathematized, 
I, in like manner, condemn, reject, and anathema- 
tize. This true Catholic faith, outside of which no 
one can be saved, which, at present, I readily 
profess and truly hold, I, N., promise, vow, and 
swear, that I will most steadfastly retain and con- 
fess the same entire and undefikd to the last 
breath of life, (with God's help,) and that I will 
take care, as far as shall be in n-y power, that it 
be held, taught, and preached by my subjects, or 
those whose charge shall devolve on me in virtue 
of my office. So help me God, and^these Holy 
Gospels of God." 

I have inserted the entire profession and oath of 
those exalted to official rule in tlie church, lest it 
might be said that I had marred the meaning by 
extracts. As to the orders of bishops and priests 
in the church who govern the people or lay mem- 
bers, I refer to a portion of a decree of the Coun- 
cil of Trent, as follows : 

" Sacrifice and priesthood are, by the ordinance 
of G<>'', in such wise enjoined as that both have 
exi.-t>' ';i pvery law. Whereas, therefore, in the 
Ne%* ' .■ •tment, the Catholic church has received, 
from t! e iicstitution of our Lord, the holy visible 
sacriiico of tbc Eucharist, it must of necessity, and 
also be confessed that there is, in that (church), a 
new, visible, and external priesthood, into which 
the old has been translated; and the Sacred Scrip 
tures show, and the tradition of the Holy Catholic 
Church has always taught,, that this was instituted 
by the same Lord, our Saviour, and that to the 
apostles, and to their successors in the priesthood, 
the power was delivered of consecrating, offering, 
and administering His body and blood, as also of 
remitting and retaining sins." 

Chap. '22. — " The Holy Synod being desirous 
that ecclesiastical discipline may not only be re- 
stored among the Chiistian people, but that it also 
may be preserved sound and safe lioiu all manner 
of hindiauce, besides those things which it has or^ 
dained respecting ecclesiastical persons, h^s thought 
fit that secular princes also be admonished of their 
duty — trusting that they, as Catholics, whom God 
has willed to be the protectors of holy fiiith and 
church, will not only grant that to the church her 
own right be restored, but will also recall all their 
own subjects to the reverance due towards the 
clergy, parish priests, and superior orders; nor 
permit that their officials or inferior magistrates, 
through any eagerness of covetousness, or any 
want of consideration, violate that immunity of the 
church, and of ecclesiastical persons, which, by the 
ordinance of God, and by the sanctions of the can- 
ons, has been established, but that they render to- 
gether with the princes themselves, due obser- 
vance to the sacred constitutions of sovereign pon- 
tiffs, and of councils," &c. 

Lutiier taught the truth of the following among 
many other propositions which were condemned 
by the Pope and the church : 

Proposition 25. — " The Roman Pontiff, suc- 
cessor of Peter, is not the Vicar of Christ.instituted 



over all churches of the entire world by Christ 
himself in Saint Peter." 

Proposition 2*7. — "It is certain that it is not at 
all in the power of the chuich or of the Pope to 
determine articli'S of fait'', nay, neither the laws of 
morals nor of good woi;.-." 

The condemnation of t'leso and other pi'oposi- 
tions by the Pope is a.-, follows : 

"All and each of the aforesaid articles, or er 
rors, as being, as is premised, respectively hereti- 
cal, or scandalous, false or offensive to pious ears, 
or suited to lead astray simple minds, or contrary 
to Catholic truth, we condemn, reprobate, and 
entirely reject," &c. 

The following Extracts are from Puxckk's 
History of the Popes. 
" The Spirit, (says Bellarmine, a Roman Catholic 
writer,) guides and bridles the flesh not vice versa. 
Just so the temporal authority must not presume 
to exalt itself above the spiritual, to guide, com- 
mand or punish it. This would be rebellion— a 
heathenish tyranny. The priesthood have their 
Prince who commands them, not only in spiritual, 
but in temporal affairs; it is impossible that they 
should acknowledge a special temporal^ superior ; 
no man can serve two masters. It is for" the Priest 
to judre the Emperor— not the Emperor the 
Priest; it would be absurd were the sheep to 
think of judging the shepherd. * * * To the 
clergy of the New Testament belongs exactly the 
same right that was formerly conceded to the Le- 
viles under the old dispensation." This was a 
doctrine which promised that spiritual republic, to 
which was to accrue so great an influence over the 
State, a no less complete independence of any 
reaction on the part of the latter, on which it was 
sought in Rome to establish, by innumerable proofs 
from Scripture, from councils,. and rom imperial 
and papal constitutions, and which Avas considered, 
on the whole, as irrefutable. 

I have stated that some European Catholics 
protested against the power of the Church and 
Pope of Rome. In confirmation I refer to Rancke's 
History of the Popes. In the disputes between 
Louis XIV. of ¥v>ince and the Pope, that wri- 
ter says : 

"At any rate, the cic-gy stood by their King 
against the Pope without scruple ; year after year 
they put forth more decided declarations in favor- 
of royal authority. At last ensued the •convoca- 
tion of 1682. The four articles it drew up, have 
ever been regarded as the manifesto of Gallicau , 
liberties. The first th-ee reiterated principles as- 
sorted before — the independence of the secular 
power, as regarded the spiritual— the superiority 
of councils over the Pope— and the inviolability of- 
the Gallican usages. P-t the fourth is more re- 
markable, inasmuch as ii -tmits tne spiritual au- 
thority of the Pope. Even in questions of faith 
the Pope's decision is not incapable of amendment,, 
so long as it has not received the assent of the- 
Church." 

This opposition led to war. In- the meantime 
that Pope died, and " Abiander the VIII., (his 
successor,) proclaimed anew the resolutions of 
1682 to be invalid and void— nuli und of no effect, 
not binding even though backed b / the force of 
an oath— declaring that day and night he thought 



on them with a heart full of bitterness, and lifted 
up his eyes with tears and solis. At last the 
French clergy submitted to the Pope in these hu- 
miliating words : 'I'roslratc al the feet of your 
Holine:JS wo profess our unspenknble sorrow for 
the same.' " If the Pope eould only hear my two 
colleagues in tlieir defence of liiui, stripping him 
of the attributes of Saint Peter, liow bitter would 
be his sorrow and liow he would weep and sob. 

Rancke says of the Council of Trent, that it was 
the most important of modern nges : 

"The faithful were again subjected to the un- 
compromising discipline of the Church, and, in 
urgent cases, to the sword of excommunication. 
* • * * It was a regulation attended with 
weighty results that the bisliops found tliemselvc^-, 
by a special confession of faitii, signed and sworn 
to by then), to observance of the decrees of tiic 
Council of Trent and to ; ubmissiveness to the 
Pope. • * * As the exclusive right of in- 
terpreting the decrees of the Council of Trent, was 
reserved to the Pope, it was always in his power 
to prescribe rules for faitli and conduct." 

The same author in relating the history of the 
struggles of the Protestants, and the conferences 
held in order to elVect a reconciliation with the 
Church, says, the Pope instructed his legate to the 
conference — " We must first see whether the Pro- 
testants accord with us in the main principles; for 
example, the supremacy of the Holy See, the sa- 
craments, and some others." 

It has been asserted by my colleagues that 
American Catholics Jo not acknowledge the doc- 
trine of the supremacy of the Pope as I have ex- 
plained it. I do not pretend to state the individ- 
ual opinions of members of the Catholic Church. 
But I will quote an extract from Brownson's Re- 
view — a good American Catholic authority, and 
leave the question for the decision of every man 
for himself. Brownson says, " Kings and tempo- 
ral lords, as such, are confessedly nuU, and there- 
fore unknown, in the spiritui 1 order, and are in it 
only private individuals, undistinguishable as to 
State or dignity from the meanest of their servants ; 
with no propriety, then, would our Lord have on 
his garment and on his thigh, ' King of Kings and 
Lord of Lords,' i''he had not dominion over them 
in temporal.-?, in that order in which they are kings 
and lords. !St. Paul declares that is tlie ' head of 
all principality and power ;' and we may conclude 
with absolute certainty that he has, even accord- 
ing to his human nature, universal dominion ; and 
that only he, as the apostle, says, who put all un- 
der him, is subject to him. It f Hows, thcrolore, 
neces.'arily, if the dominion of oui- Lord in the 
fle=h, or as the Messiah, is thus universal, that tlie 
Christian law, the law of Christ, >'xtci.ds not only 
to spirituals, but al.^o to temporals, and is the 
supreme law of both orders. Kings and lord.s, 
magistrates, and rulers, sovereigns and subjects, 
are under it in all things temporal, and in things 
spiritual. Whoso denicH this, denies not merely 
the sounder opinion, but the Christian religion it- 
self." 

" This established, we demand to whom, under 
God, it belongs, to keep, interpret and declare the 
law of Christ, whom hath our Lord constituted 
the depository, the guardian and judge of his law? 
Certainly the Holy Roman Catholic aitd apostolic 



Church, and the succts*or of Peter as visible heady 
or supreme chief of that Church^ 

To show what authority Hrowiison is, I insert hu 
extract fiom a le'ler addressed to him by Frftiicw 
Patrick Kcnriek, Catholic Bishop of Pbiludolphtu, 
under date of May i:ith, 184'J, as follows: 

" After the dose of our council, I suggested to 
our venerable metropolitan the propriety of en- 
couraging you, by our ajiprobation and influence, 
to contirnie your literary labors in defence ol" thu 
faith, of which you have proved an able and in- 
I trepid adyoeate. He received the suggestion most 
; readily, and I take the liberty of couunut icaling 
the fact to you as a mark of my sincere esteem, 
ami of the deep interest I feel in your excellent 
Review. I shall beg of him and of other prelates 
who entertain the same views, to subscribe their 
names on conhrmulion of my statement." — Quar- 
terly Jieviev, January, 185;i. 
I This letter is signed by twenty-five Catholio 
, Archbishops and Bishops, the chiefs of the Romiui 
Church in the United Slates, amo..g theiti Arch- 
bishop Hughes. 
I Mr. TALHOTT. I wrote down on a piece of 
paper what I understood my colleague (Mr. Cox,) 
to say in complaining of my colleague, (Mr, Jkw- 
, KTT,) on my right — because he had not taken the 
interpretation given by the American party of 
their own principles, as the true principles of that 
party. Ho says that every party nhould be the 
only true interpreter of its own principles. Now 
my colleague (.\lr. < 'ox,) says, that the Catholies 
entertain certain principles and sentiments whicli 
he has named, ami I tell him if he will apply the 
same rule to the principles of that, Church, which 
he has asked to be applied to his party, I will 
take the responsibility of saying that tlie Catholics 
of this country do not hold to principles such as 
he has attributed to them. That they do not re- 
cognise the right of tho Pope to direct them in 
civil matters. 

Mr. COX. I have observed the exact rule to 
which my colleague refers, and which I am willing 
shall be applied in all free discussion of political 
parl>7 principles. I do not pretend to state the 
individuiil opinions of those who profess the Cath- 
olic religion. ,My opinions of the doctrines of the 
Catholic Church are not founded upon transient 
conversations with members of ihatCiiurch; or 
I studied and aitfully prepared defences against the 
' keen criticisms of Protestant independence. My 
oainions are deduced from the councils of the 
Church, and from the exercise of [lower by the 
Pope, as illustrated in the pages of history. I 
have already said that the Pope claims no civil or 
temporal jurisdiction, as such, outside of the pap.il 
States. But that his power beyond them consisted 
in his acknowledged supremacy over the right, of 
private judgment and the consciences of the mem- 
I bers of his Church, as the vicegerent of God on 
' earth. Will my colleague, (Mr. Taluott,) as a 
I representative, deny that the Pope claims the 
I power to direct the conscience of every child of 
; the church, even to the extent of deciding w helher 
j he shall obey the mandate of the church or that 
i of the civil magistrate ? 

Mr. TALBOTT. I say that the Catholics of this 
country deny that the Pope has any control over 
them in temporal matters. That is what I tay. 



Mr. COX. Some persons who profess the Cath- 
olic religion do deny the supremacy of the Pope. 
I have so stated and proved the position of the 
GalJican Church, and no doubt some CathoHcs in 
this country a^ree with the Gallican church. 

Mr. TALBOTT. The Catholics in this country 
as a body deny the existence of any such power. 

Mr. COX. I cannot admit the correctness of 
that assertion. I have stated that the Catholic 
Church and the Pope of Rome did not claim civil 
jurisdiction, as such, outside of the Papal States. 
But when the power is conceded to the Pope to 
shut the gates of heaven, and no man can open; to 
open, and no man can shut ; to bind on earth 
whatsoever he pleases, and the same shall be 
bound in heaven ; that he has power to fix the 
destiny of the living eternal soul, which by his ex- 
communicating power he can cast off from hope 
and consign to everlasting misery, never to be re- 
leased; I say, when this doctrine is established, 
you fasten upon men, and especially upon the ig- 
norant, an influence that will control them, £;nd re- 
ceive as implicit an obedience as any human 
agency can invent or carry into practice. If such 
is not the effect of human power over poor, frail, 
and blind human nature, then I confess my whole 
philosophy on this subject is erroneous. 

Mr. Chairman, Martin Luther was a Catholic. — 
He started out with the intention of purifying and 
reforming the church, and not of overturning it. 
But on examination he found the disorders too 
deeply seated to admit of remedy, and he estab- 
lished a new organization to which he confided the 
sacerdotal duties of Christianity. His reformation 
was founded upon a few simple truths. The theo- 
logical doctrine of justification by faith, and the 
great political doctrine of the right of private 
judgment were the corner stones of his mighty 
achievement. This doctrine was denied by the 
Church of Rome, ad asserted by Luther, Zuingle, 
Erasmus, Riuchlin, Melancthon, and other bold 
spirits of the reformation. These apostl-^s of free 
thought protested against the tyrannical doctrines 
of the Roman Church and opened up to Europe an 
era of light and civilization, of social and moral re- 
finement unknown to the dark ages of church 
domination. Their mission was to free the people 
from the usurpation of the church, not only in le- 
»veying pecuniary contributions to support a host 
of indolent, vile, and corrupt priests, but also to 
redeem them from the usurpations of civil power 
which had been established over nearly every na- 
tion and government of Europe — and well did they 
accomplish their task. 

Mr. Chairman, this doctrine of the right of pri- 
vate judgment ia reference to rcHgion embraces 
the greatest idea which has been promulgated since 
the days of the Messiah. It struck from the minds 
of mer- all over th<> world the shackles which had 
been imposed by a mercenary and corrupt priest- 
hood. We are indebted to this doctrine for our 
civilization and splendid greatness as a moral, so- 
cial, and independent political people ; and we 
should guard it with unwearied vigilance, as the 
most precious jewel in the casket of freedom. I 
have explained the doctrine of the Roman Catho- 
lic Church on the subject of the power of the 
Pope as I understand it, and as it has been under- 
stood by Protestants both in Europe and America 



for more than two hundred years ; and the Amer- 
ican party declare they will not support the politi- 
cal pretensions of men who subscribe to this doc- 
trine. Those who protest against this doctrine 
are not embraced in the primuple of exclusion 
adopted by that party. 

I will now ask my colleague from the Danville 
district, [Mr. Talbott,] not wishing to trouble my 
colleague from the Elizabethtown district [Mr. 
Jkivett] any further, whether or not he would 
vote for any man for official station who acknow- 
ledged the supremacy of the Pope over the con- 
sciences of men, and who recognised his right to 
obedience even against the laws and temporal 
magistratei ? 

Mr. TALBOTT. I am happy that my colleague 
has put the question, but I regret exceedingly that 
I have not the time to answer it in the way I would 
like. At the first opportunity this old plank of 
the Know Nothing platform, proscribing men for 
their religious opinions, would display itself, would 
that I had time to make the reply I would like to. 
I tell my colleague, never : that Twill vote for no 
man of any party or of any church whose political 
feelings and opitiions I behove to be inimical to the 
country, but I would rati^cr have my arm torn 
from my body and my tongue plucked from my 
mouth than make a distinction against my fellow- 
ci izen on account of his religion or because he 
belonged to this, or that, or the other church. 

Mr. COX. My colleague agrees with me in my 
position. He says he will not vote for any man 
whose political opinions and feelings, in his opin- 
ion, are inimical to the institutions of the country. 
If I am to receive that as an answer to my ques- 
tion, my colleague means to say that persons hold- 
ing the doctrine of the supremacy of the Pope, as 
described by me, do hold opinions inimical to the 
institutions of the country, and that he would 
never vote for such persons. In this he agrees 
with me ; and the only question to decide is 
whether the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope 
avow the doctrine, and whether its members ad- 
mit and believe it. 

My colleague from the Danville district [Mr. 
Talbott] is affected with the same partisan feel- 
ings which illustrate the whole history of Demo- 
cratic opposition to the American party, and un- 
der the influence of such feelings strikes desperate 
blows at the imaginary doctrines of that party. — 
He thought that at the first opportunity, this re- 
ligious plank of the Know Nothing platform, pro- 
scribing men for their religious opinions, would 
display itself, and he would rather have his arm 
torn from his body and his tongue plucked out 
than make a distinction against any citizen because 
he belonged to this, that, or the other church. — 
Now this language conveys the insinuation that 
some men or party do proscribe men for their re- 
ligious opinions, and make distinctions because 
they belong to a particular church. What party 
is it ? I have nailed the charge of proscription 
against the American party to the counter as an 
unfounded allegation, and I challenge any fair- 
minded man to show, from the declared principles 
of the American party, by any reasonable construc- 
tion, that there is any justice in this loose and 
wholesale denunciation. 
No, sir, the only difference between my colleague 



jnd myself is, that I declare in advance, I will not ! 
cast my vote for any person holding certain opin- 
■ ioQ8. My colleague says I am wronfj, because, he 
says, nobody entertains tht> opinions which I con- 
demn. Very well, if that hu true, convince ine by 
reafeon, by an exhibit of llie tiiit-t.-i aiid history of 
the party supposed to hold tlu'se opinions, thiil I 
am mistaken, an J I will withdraw my resolution. 
But suppose I am right — how then? Why my j 
colleague says he would act exactly as I have de- i 
clarcd my intention to act. Away then with your | 
charge of proscription, of depriving mm of con- 
stitutional rights, of conspiiacy, and all that long 
list of charges founded alone on the nnpetuo.-!ity of 
party malevolence, and proclaimed in the unguard- 
ed and incon.'iiderate moments of passionate de- 
bate. I love my country, Mr. Chairman, as much 
as my colleague or any member of his party, and 
in the hour of trial would be as ready, I do not 
pretend to say more so, to defend it and all its in- 
stitutions fiom invasion from without, and dangers 
within. I would rally, sir, to the standard of my 
country and stand as (irmly for the constitutional 
aud legal rights of adopted citizens and resident 
Roman Catholics as I would for the rights of the 
native born and the Protestant. I would not de- 
prive them of any right guaranteed to them by the 
Constitution and tlie laws, and he who asserts to 
the contrary misunderstands me, and in his igno- 
rance of my true opinions aud intentions does me 
great injustice. 

Mr. LETCHER. There seems to be more Cath- 
olics in Kentucky than in any other State. Now 
I desire to ask my friend from Kentucky [Mr. Cox] 
whether he ever saw such a Catholic as be de- 
scribes; and if so, what is his name, and where 
does he Uve V [Laughter.] Is there such a man? 
I have heard talk of such, a man, but I have never 
saw any such. 

Mr. COX. There are but few Catholics in tLe 
district which I represent. I am not acquainted 
with their individual opinions. My opinions, as I 
have stated before, are not based upon transient 
conversations with members of tiiat church, nor 
from any want of personal respect and esteem for 
many persons of my acquaintance who believe its 
doctrines, but from the history of the church it- 
self, the decrees of its councils, and the corrobo- 
_rating testimony of all Protestant writers for two 
hundred years. When my friend from Virginia 
shall have examined this subject fully he will ad- 
rait that I have correctly stated the doctrine of the 
Catholic church. 

Mr. JEWETT. In answer to the question of my 
colleague whether I would vote for a man for any 
office who believes in the temporal power of the 
Pope, I wish to state, tirst, that I know of no such 
man in my State or district. I will, however, an- 
swer the question, in the language of another. In 
the reign of James the First, the twelve judges of 
England were summoned before the king in coun- 
cil and inquired of by the king's attorney general 
touching the jurisdiction of the court. The judges 
were questioned thus : 

" In a case where the king believed his preroga- 
tive or interest concerned, aud required the judges 
to attend him for their advice, ought they not to 
atav proceedings till his majesty has consulted 
JhmV" 



All the judges except Coke answered, •' Yes 
yes! yes!" 

When the ca.to happens, I shall do that which 
befits for a judge to do. This is ray answer to 
your q\iestio:i. 

Mr. COX. I presume my colleague would de- 
cide as Lord Coke did. I know he is very capable 
of doing it, and his decision 1 hope would be against 
the Pope — so, no doubt, my Lord Coke woidd have 
decided, for he was a most excellent Protestant. 

Mr. Chairman : I came here to-night to pay my 
personal respects to my colleague in a very difter- 
ent way. I intended to give my attention to him, 
and listen to what I knew would bi; a sensible and 
respectful speech. I have been led from my pur- 
pose, and without a note of preparation have re- 
sponded to the principal allegations aguin-st the 
party with which I co-operate, and I now leave 
that subject for the decision of our fellow-citizens. 
There is one other subject to which my colleague 
calleil the attention of the Committee upon which 
I will avail myself of this occasion to make some 
observations. That is the approaching presiden- 
tial election. I agree with my colleague in at- 
taching to the result of this election the most mo- 
mentous consequences, and feel that it is the duty 
of every citizen to awaken every sentiment of pa- 
triotisni in discharging the responsibility of choos- 
ing men to fill the highest offices under the Con- 
stitution. The inflamed condition of sectional an- 
imosity, the universal agitation of exciting politi- 
cal questions, and the bloody strife in one of the 
national territories, all conspire to threaten the 
perpetuity of this glorious union of States, and to 
extinguish forever the hopes of freedom. My col- 
league says the great question which presents it- 
self to the people of the South in this crisis is 
whether they shall be united or divided in their 
choice. The union of the South he thinks indis- 
pensable to the protection and preservation of 
Southern rights. I would agree with my colleague 
in the propriety of Southern concert provided we 
could agree upon the man and the principles upon 
winch the South should unite. I desire a union 
upon a man of national, not sectional, views and 
sentiments ; a man whose nationality is as broad 
as the national domain, and whose patriotism em- 
br.ices evcrv cottasre and hamlet, as well as city, 
in the Republic. Such a man, sir, is Millard Fill- 
more, whose name and patriotism are known to all 
the people. My colleague thinks the South 
should support Mr. Buchanan, the Democratic can- 
didate ; whilst a powerful party in the Northern 
States has nominated Col. Fremont, and urge his 
election because of his agreement with their pecu- 
liar sectional views. Let us examine for a short 
time the claims of these respective candidates to 
the public and national confidence. And first, as 
to Mr. Buchanan. Southern gentlemen say he is 
sound on the all-important question of slavery — 
that he stands upon the Cincinnati platform, and 
the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. They 
say that no man or platform is sound on the slavery 
qticstion that does not deny that Congress pos- 
sesses the constitutional power to restrict slavery 
in the Territories. They are not satisfied with a 
disclaimer of any intention to exercise such power, 
but require an absolute denial of the existence of 
such power under the Constitution. This is the 



10 



constructiou I have heard put upon the Ciucinnatl 
platform bj' gentlemen upon this floor in speeches 
which are sent forth to the Southern people as the 
Democratic creed. If this is the Southern con- 
struction of the Cincinnati platform let the Xorth 
know it. Say to the North that you hold no com- 
munion with any Democrat who believes that Con- 
gress has power under the Constitution to prohibit 
slavery in the Territories. I do not believe that 
Congress possesses this power — but I do not make 
a man's opinion on this subject the touchstone of 
political orthodoxy ; and all that I think should be 
required on a question about which such a differ- 
ence of opinion has always existed among the 
brigliiest intellects of the country, is that no con- 
stitutional power should be exercised to the pre- 
judice of the rights of the States or of persons in 
their persons or property ; that whenever the ef- 
fect of the exertion of constitutional power on a 
particular subject would be to produce agitation 
and discontent and no practical good, the power 
should not be exercised even if expressly granted, 
but the peace and tranquillity of the country should 
be preserved. Sir, if you apply the principle laid 
down by Southern gentlemen on the subject of 
slavery, you exclude from your co-operation every 
man who admits the power, however much he 
may oppose its exercise. It is well known that 
Mr. Buchanan himself, in the whole course of his 
long public life, has never asserted that Congress 
has not power to prohibit slavery in the Territories. 
On the contrary, he has frequently admitted that 
power in' Congress. He was in favor of the Mis- 
souri Compromise of 1820 ; and I have not a doubt 
was opposed to its repeal. When a member of 
the Senate, he repeatedly presented petitions for 
the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. 
On this subject he said on one occasion on pre- 
senting such a petition, that Congress ought not, 
in justice to Maryhnd and Virginia, to abolish 
slavery in this District as long as it existed in those 
States, but when it ceased to exist in those States 
Congress should abolish it in this District. He 
admitted the power, but thought it inexpedient to 
exercise it then. He said in the debate on the 
proposition to annex Texas, that he was in favor 
of the annexation because it would cause the 
States of Maryland and Kentucky to abolish sla- 
very. He declared on the subject of slavery gen- 
erally, that his opinions were the same as those 
held by the State of Pennsylvania — that he had 
always been with her on that subject. Now the 
history of that State pre;)ents an unbroken opposi- 
tion to this institution for more than fifty years. — 
But, lest I should mistake his opinions, I here in- 
sert them as expressed and published by himself 
aud recorded in the annals of our congressional 
history : 

From the Congressional Globe^ vol. 3, page 85. 

Mr. Buchanan said : 

" In presenting this memorial, and in exerting 
himself, so fir as in him lay, to secure for it that 
respectful reception by the Senate, which it de- 
served, he .-^hould do his duty to the memorialists ; 
but he owed a duty to himeelf and to his country, 
which he would perform. He was clearly of opin- 
ion, for the reasons he had stated on Thursday 
last, that Congress ought not, at this time, to abol- 
ish slavery in the Distiict of Columbia, and that it 



was our duty promptly to place this exciting ques- 
tion at rest. He should, therefore, move that the 
memorial be read, and that the prayer of the me- 
morialists be rejected." 

On the Thursday before he said on the subject 
of slavery : 

" He thought Congress ought not to abolish 
slavery in the District of Columbia, in justice to 
Maryland and Virginia. But (said he) when sla- 
very ceases to exist under the laws of Maryland 
and Virginia — then, and not till then, ought it to 
be abolished in the District of Columbia. Notwith- 
standing these were his opinions, he could not 
vote for the motion of the Senator from South 
Carolina (Mr. Calhoun) not to receive this memo- 
rial." 

From the Congressional Globe ^ vol. 8, page 158, 
Feb. 3, 1840. 
" Mr. Buchanan presented the petition of Jacob 
M. Ellis, and 21 other citizens of Philadelphia 
county, praying for an alteration of the Constitu- 
tion so as to abolish slavery in the United States ; 
and 4 other petitions for the abolition of slavery 
and the slave trade in the District of Columbia." 

From the Congressional Globe, vol. 3, prti^e 328, 
April 25, 1836. 
" Mr. Buchanan said he rose to present the 
memorial of the yearly meeting of the religious 
Society of Friends, which had been recently 
held in the city of Philadelphia, remonstrating 
against the admission of Arkansas into the Union, 
whilst a provision remained in her constitutioo 
which admits of and may perpetuate slavery. * * 
The language of this memorial was perfectly re- 
spectful. Indeed, it could not be otherwise, con- 
sidering the source from which it emanated. It 
breathes throughout the pure and Christian spirit 
which had'always animated the Society of Friends; 
and although he did not concur with tJem in opin- 
ion, their memorial was entitled to be received 
with great respect. When the highly respectable 
committee which had charge of this memorial call- 
ed upou him this morning, and desired hi-m to 
present it to the Senate, he had felt it to be his 
duty to inform them in what relation he stood to 
the question. He slated to them, that he had 
been requested by the delegate from Arkansas to 
take charge of the application of that Territory to 
be admitted into the Union, and that he had cheer- 
fully taken upon himself the performance of this 
duty. He also read to them the 8th section of the 
act of Congress of 6th March, 1820, containing 
the famous Missouri Compromise ; and informed 
them that the whole Territory of Arkansas was 
south of the parallel of 36 degrees and a half of 
north latitude ; and that he regarded this com- 
promise, considering the exciting and alarming 
circumstances under which it was made, and the 
dangers to the existence of the Union which it had 
removed, to be almost as sacred as a constitutional 
provision. That there might be no mistake on the 
subject, he had also informed them that in pre- 
senting their memorial he should feel it to be his 
duty to state these facts to the Senate. With this 
course, on his part, they were satisfied, and still 
continued their request that he might present the 
memorial. He now did so with great pleasure. 
He hoped it might be received by the Senate with 



11 



all the respect it ho liig'ily dcsorvcil. He asked ! 
that it lui^ht bu read ; and us tho (lucstioii of the 
admission of Arkansas was no longer before us, he , 
moved that it might he laid upon the tablv. The ] 
mi-nioiinl wa>i aoeordinf^ly re:id, and ordered to be • 
laid upon the table." | 

From the C'onf/rfssiv7ial C/fobc, vol. ;5, pa(jf 7'.'. \ 

Spcakuis; of slavery, Mi. Huchaimn said, after 
stating he would leave slavery where the Constitu- i 
tion left it, with tho States — " For one, whatever i 
may be my opinions upon tiie ab.s'racL ((uestion ol 
slavery, and I am free to confess, '/it'i/<n-<' thoDc of \ 
the people of J'envsi/ivania, I shall never attempt 
to violate tliis fuiidamcutal com|)act." j 

In answer to these opinions, Mr. Iluehannn's 
friends say he endorses the Cincinnati piai!t)rm, | 
and that cuies all his former errors. It is right 
and ])roper for them to speak for him, Ijecause | 
Mr. Buchanan cannot speak for himself now. 
[Ijiughtcr.] He d;iro not any longer open his 
mouth 10 speak the genuine sentiments of his ; 
heart, and the conclusions of hi-^ own judgment. | 
In resi)oi:se to a complimentary visit to a Demo- 
cratic Club soon after his nomination, he said he I 
was no longer James Buchanan, but the nominee ' 
of the Cincinnati (^'cnvention. He is no longer 
James Buchanan — free to express his own opin- 1 
ions, but compelled to square his words and ac- 
tions with the Cincinnati i-lattorm. Oh what a fall 1 
from his high position ! The c.x-minister to I'hig- 
land ; the once distinguished Senator from Penn- ' 
sylvania ; the S'lgc of Wheatland — more th m all, 
the tree A mcrican citizen — descends from th .^ lofty 
position he had attained and becomes the minis- 
terial agent of a conclave of politicians recently 
assembled at Cincinnati — the executive head of a 
party convention, to regi-'ter and carry its decrees 
into operation ! And now his friends in the South 
say he is bound by the platform, and we ire no 
longer to look to his individual opinions, but to tho 
resolutions of his party. His friends must know 
that there are many Deniocral-j in the free States 
who support Mr. Buchanan, and who are us much 
opposed to slavery and its extension as the Re- 
publican party itself; and tiiey dare not allow that 
Mr. Buchanan shall be held responsible for the 
opinions and votes of his Free-soil friends. Need 
I name the Van Burens ; the Dix.*s; the Coch- 
ranes; the Hal'ets; the Butlers; the Cushings ; 
and the loug list of Free-soilers, who now support 
Mr. Buchanan ibr the I'rcsidency ? 

All t.iese things, and many more, are true of 
the Democratic Buchanan party; and yet that 
party, in the face of these facts, go fur behind the 
administration of .Mr. Fillmore, v.hen his conserv- 
ative nationality was put to a practical test, and 
exhibit to the country a letter written in ISHS, 
and some votes on the simple right of i)etition, to 
prove that he is not a national man; and their 
press in the South, and tome of their orators, 
boldly charge that he is an abolitionist, with a 
worse record than Fremont. If Mr. Buchanan's 
acceptance ol the Democratic nomination and en- 
dorsement of the Cincinnati platform have purged 
away all his anti-slavi-ry sentiments, and trans- 
formed him from a Fie. soiler into the representa- 
tire of southern sectional rights and opinions, 
ought not three years' administration of the exec- 
utive power of the Government, with exact justice 



to every section and every constitutional right, 
under the greatest crisis in tin- history of the lie- 
public, to give a suHieieut guarantee; of Mr. Fill- 
more's nationality, conkservatjsm and patriolicm V 
Sir, 1 have not called up the history of Mr. Bu- 
chanan for the purpose of imputing to that gentle- 
man an) lack of patriotism, nor dispiirage his per- 
sonal or political character — but to show the true 
character of the partisan waifare, waged b\ the 
Democratic i)arly, with a view to promote the ac- 
complishment ol its ambition. (Jne of two con- 
clusions must be deduced from the facts and cir- 
cumstances attending the present contest for the 
Presidency — either that the political opin ons of 
tho candidate on the snl)ieet of slavery are wholly 
disregarded by thj Democratic parly, and all the 
clamor upon that subject is only a part of the 
means to accomplish the ends of its ambition ; or, 
the party has determined to make a sectional con- 
test, in which they invite the South to unite upon 
Mr. Buchanan, because he has surrender-.^d his 
private opinions and personal independence, and 
become the representative of sectionni views and 
opinions. Upon wliat principle the Xortii can be 
urged to support Mr. Buchanan, I am at a loss to 
determine. They may allow his spokesman to fall 
back upon his own record, in which he plac<-s him- 
self in harmony with the State of Pennsylvania in 
uncompromising hostility to slavery ; or they may 
rely upon the magic power of tJie word Democrat, 
which forms the mystic and imperceptible tie 
which has hitherto united the most heterogeneous 
elements into a common mas-. If the principle of 
sectional opinions upon the abstract question of 
African slavery is to be adopted as the rallying 
element in the South, then I am prepared to pro- 
nounce that party as perRrctly sectional a.s any 
other in the Union. And if the mere term De- 
mocracy is to be employed as a rallying word to 
all who wish to participate in the spoils of victory 
without regard to their political opinions, then I 
protest again.st the deception, and expose the 
stratagem as the artful invention of inordinate lust 
for port-er. A single word as to the Repubhcan 
nomination and the principles of that party. That 
[ party is the representative of the Northern sec- 
; tional sentiment on the subject of slavery, and like 
j other extremists, make their opinions the touch- 
1 .stone of political orthodoxy, and, like the Demo- 
cratic party South, the Republicans have nominated 
a man whose little record exhibits him in direct 
j opposition to their anti-slavery sentiments. But 
j they, too, have a platform, the endorsement of 
which cures all unsoundness, and transforms a 
^ Southern man — educated among a slaveholding 
people — into the representative of extreme anti- 
1 slavery sentiments. Look at the similarity in the 
action of these two parties. The Democratic 
! party claiming to be the peculiar defen 1 - of the 
constitutional rights of the South— am which 
is slavery — with James Buchanan as tho : candi- 
date, who declares he is and iilways had been op- 
posed to the institution of sUvery. The Rcpub- 
; lican party, which claims to be the peculiar 
I guardian oi" the constitutional rights of the free 
j States and free people of all colors, with John 
j Charles Fremont, a Southerner, and heretofore 
supposed supporter of African slavery, as its can- 
didate. I will not support the pretensions of ex- 



12 



tremists on either f'ulc of tho tlave line; nor make 
abstract opinions of constitutional power upon 
questions of difliculty and doubt, the test of poHti- 
cal affiliation. I think it is right to concede some- 
thing, in the spirit of national paternity, to our 
Northern brethren. I would nor yield any im- 
portant interest to gratify sectional fanaticism. 
But I would tolerate differences of opinion among 
national and conservative men, and unite upon one 
great principle of devotion to the Union, and the 
extinguishment of sectional agitation. But my 
colleague says that in the 12th section of the Phi- 
ladelphia platform, adopted in June, 1855, the 
American party gained every election in which it 
succeeded in the Southern States ; and I under- 
stand him to admit now, that that section pre- 
sented a view of the slavery question which was 
satisfactory to a majority of the people iji the 
South in which the American party succeeded; nor 
does he allege that it was not sound and orthodox 
on that subject. He now deplores the rejection of 
that section by the American Council, in February, 
1856, and the substitution in its place of the 8th 
section of the present platform. I have heard 
much wailing on the part of the Democratic party 
South for the loss of this 12th section. The 
American party are satisfied with the substitute, 
which, though not identical in ternis, is equivalent 
in principle in reference to the subject of slavery 
in the Territories. The complaint comes alto- 
gether from the Democratic party and those who 
now co-operate with it. 

Mr. BARKSDALE. Was the American party 
at the SoLth in favor of striking out the twelfth 
section of the platform ? 
Mr. COX. I think it was not. 
Mr. BARKSDALE. Then the Americac party 
was satisfied with the twelfth section? 
Mr. COX. Certainly. 

Mr. BARKSDALE. Then why was it stricken 
out? 

Mr. COX. I do not suppose t'lat when a prop- 
osition is made it must necessarily stand in the 
same words forever. Though we yielded some- 
thing in phraseology, we have precisely the same 
thing in substance. 

Mr. BARKSDALE. I sheuld like to ask the 
gentleman what occ^ision there was for changing 
the platform? 

Mr. COX. I do not think there was anv. 
Mr. BARKSDALE. Why was it done then ? 
Mr. (;;0X. I suppose others thought it was 
necessary. 

Mr. BARKSDALE. Were those others North- 
ern or Southern men ? 

Mr. COX. I have not the proceedings of the 
Philudwlphia Council before me, and cannot state 
the position taken by the members from the two 
sections of the Union on that subject, though I 
believe the Southern members generally opposed 
the modification of the platform. 

Mr. READE. I would like to ask the gentleman 
from Mississippi a question. 

Mr. COX. If it does not come out of my 
time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair can make no 
arrangement upon the subject. 

Mr. COX. WeW I will allow the question a 
moment. , 



Mr. READE. I desire to ask the gentleman 
from Mississippi, in the same spirit that he ques- 
tioned the gentleman from Kentucky, whether or 
not the South were satisfied with Mr. Pierce as 
President of the United States? 

Mr. BARKSDALE. Certainly they were sat- 
isfied, and more than satisfied with 'him. But 
while they were satisfied with him, they were sat- 
isfied also to take Buchanan, who occupied his 
position, and who is standing precisely on the 
same broad national platform. 

Mr. READE. I desire to ask the gentleman 
another question. It is this : What was the ne- 
cessity, the South being perfectly satisfied with 
Mr. Pierce, of dropping him and taking up another 
man who is no better? 

Mr. B4.RKSDALE. Why, sir, it was a mere 
choice of names. There was no difference as to 
principle — none whatever. , 

Mr. READE. I desire to ask the gentleman 
another question— just the same question that he 
has asked the gentleman from Kentucky: Whether 
it was the Northern men or the Southern men who 
desired Mr. Buchanan in preference to Mr. 
Pierce ? 

Mr. BARKSDALE. Mr. Buchanan was pre- 
ferred by some Northern men and by some South- 
ern men. Three Southern States voted for him 
from first to last in the Cincinnati Convention — the 
Virginia delegation leading the way for him. Now 
I would like to ask the gentleman from North 
Carolina a question. 

Mr. COX. Does this come out of my time? 
The CHAIRMAN. It does. 
Mr. COX. Then the gentleman must excuse 
me. I have but little time left, otherwise I would 
yield him the floor most cheerfully. 

Mr. BARKSDALE. The gentleman yielded 
the floor to the gentleman from North Carolina to 
question me, and it seems to me that, in common 
justice, he ought now to yield it to me to question 
him. 

Mr. COX. My friend from Mississippi knows 
very well that it is not from any unkindness, or to 
place him at a disadvantage, that I decline, but I 
have only a few minutes left, which I wish to oc- 
cupy. 

I have said, Mr. Chairman, that all the com- 
plaint about the modification in terms of the 
twelfth section of the American platform of 1855, 
came from the Democratic party South. Now, 
sir, the fact is well known to my colleague [Mr. 
Jewett] that in Kentucky during the political 
canvass of last summer, and the history of the po- 
litical contests elsewhere, proves the same fact that 
the Democratic orators and newspaper pi ess as- 
sailed that twelfth section in the most violent man- 
ner, and denounced it as compromising the true 
principles of Southern constitutional rights, for the 
sake of Free-soil affiliation. Now, sir, these same 
Southern gentlemen and the same Southern press 
weep over the rejection of that section which was 
proclaimed by them to be so elastic as to embrace 
the anti-slavery sentiments of Free-soilers and Ab- 
ofitionlsts. The changes of tactics in a single 
year would almost justify the application of Dry- 
den's couplet, describing a pohtican : 

"Who in the space of one revolving moon, 
Was statesman, politician, and buflbon." 



13 



But, sir, ill order to let the people examino for 
themselves and contrast the twtiUth section with 
its substitute, I will set them in juxtaposition : 

TWELFTH SKCTION. 

Xir.— The American 
party having; arisen up- 
on the ruins and in spite 
of the opposition of the 
Whig and Democratic 
parties, cannot be in any 
manner resporsible for 
the obnoxious acts of 
violated pledges of ei- 
ther. And the system- 
atic agitation of the sla- 
very question by those 
parties having elevated 
sectional liostility into a 
positive element of po- 
litical power,and brought 
our institutions into per- 
il, it has therefore be- 
come the imperative du- 
ty of the American par- 
ty to interpose for the 
purpose of giving peace 
to the countiy and per- 
petuity to the Union. And 
as experience has shown 
it impossible to reconcile 
opinions so cxtrume as 
those which separate the 
disputants, and as tlicre 
can be no dislionor in 
submitting to the laws, 
the National Council has 
deemed it the best 
guarantee of common 
justice and of future 
peace, to abide by and 
maintain the existing 
laws upon the subject of 
slavery, as a final and 
conclusive settlement of 
that subject, in spirit and 
in substance. And re- 
garding it the highest 
duty to avow their opin- 
ions upon a subject so 
important, in distinct 
and unequivocal terms, 
it is hereby declared as 
the sense of this National 
Council, that Congress 
possesses no power, un- 
der the Constitution, to 
legislate upon the sub- 
ject of slavery in the 
States where it does or 
may exist, or to exclude 
any State from admis- 
sion into the Union, be- 
cause its Constitution 
does or does not recog- 
nise the institution of 
slavery as a part of its 
social system ; and ex- 
pressly pretermitting 



SUIISTITITE 7tII SKC- 
TION, I8r>fi. 
VII. — The roeognition 
of the right of the na- 
tive born and naturalized 
citizens of the United 
States, permanently re- 
siding in any Territory 
thereof, to frame their i 
constitution and laws, 
and to regulate their ; 
domestic and social af- I 
fairs in their own mode, 
subject only to the pro- [ 
visions of the Federal 
Constitution, with the 
privilege of admission [ 
into the Union when- 
ever they have the re- 
quisite population for 
one Representative in 
Congress. Providrdal- 
wat/n, that none but 
those who are citizens 
of ihe United States, 
under the Constitution 
and laws thereof, and 
who have a fixed resi- 
dence in any such Ter- 
ritory, ought to partici- 
pate in the forma'.ion of 
the constitution, or in 
the enactment of laws 
for said Territory or 
State. 



any cxpreshion of opin- 
ion upon the power of 
('ongress to establish or 
prohiliit slavery in any 
Territory, it is the oense 
of the Nitional Council 
that ("ongri'ss ought not 
to Icgislati! upon the 
subjot^t of clavery within 
the Territorii'S of the 
United States, and tluit 
any interference by Con- 
gress H'tli slavery as it 
exists :.: the District of 
Colun rt, would be a 
violati II of the spirit 
and inti'iition of tin 
compact liy which the 
State of Maryland ceded 
the District to the 
United States, and a 
breach of the National 
faith. 

It will be seen by examining these two proposi- 
tions, that, as to the policy of the government on 
the subject of slavery i!i the Territories, they arc 
substantially the sanir. That the roident citizens 
of the Territory sliali l<jrni and e.Jtai)lish its domes- 
tic institutions under tin- Federal Constitution ; and 
as they form them, so will Congress receive and 
recognise them, and at a proper tiffl<; admit them 
into the Confederacy as an independent, sovereign 
State. This puts don n the charge that the Amer- 
ican party want the Territories governed by an 
Abolition Congress — a mere parti^an declaration, ' 
thrown out to alarm the South, and uuitc them on 
extreme sectional grounds, as for the accomplish- 
ment of party ambition. For if the paople of the 
Territory ar-e, as we declare, to si.aile their own 
domestic instilurion-', ihont'ongre.ss is not to do it 
for theru. On the contrary, the American party 
wishes to banish this <|ue.-tioii from the National 
Councils, and repress forever the spiri: of sectional 
agitation. Democratic orators and editors, driven 
to the wall on this subject, in the lilindness of their 
party zeal, cry out that the word flivn/ is not 
found in the American plattbrin, and consequently 
no pledges for the protection of the rights of that 
institution can 'be deduced therefiom. What fatu- 
ity ! Neither the word xlafc nor datcrii is to be 
found in the Federal Constitution, and, according 
to such argument, no protection to the rights of 
the South could be derived from that instrument. 
But they declare the Constitution refers to slavery 
irr terms always acknowledged to have such appli- 
cation. We say the history of the times and of 
the American platform, and the terms employed in 
it, refer as unmistakably to slavery as does the 
Constitution of the Urrited States ; but, like the 
Constitution, it embraces other political rights, and 
does not confirrc its solicitude to a sinde principle 
to please persorral ambition or sectionalfaiiatacism. 
What is the Dcruooralic platforni on this subject? 
It asserts that the people of the Territory have the 
right to frame their own domestic institutions un- 
der the Constitution of the Ursited States. This, 
without construction, is tantamount to the position 
of the American party. But Mr, BuchsTjan ex- 
plains his understanding of thi.? portion of :h2 plat- 



14 



Ibiru to be, that the people of the Territory, while 
they are under a Territorial government, have the 
power to establish or abolish slavery, and may and 
ou,c;ht to exercise that power without the interven- 
tioii of the Federal Government. In his letter ac- 
cepting the nomination, he uses the following lan- 
guage : 

" This legislation (the Kansas-Nebraska act) is 
founded npon principles as ancient as free 
govern7n€nt itself ; and in accordance with ihetn, 
has simply declared, that the people of a Territo- 
ry, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves 
whether slaver;/ shall or shall not exist within 
their limits^ 

From whence do the people derive this power? 
They either have it, independent of the Federal 
Constitution, or derive it from an act of Congress 
conferring it upon them, and if Congress confers 
tl^e power, it must possess the power Itself under \ 
the Constitution. Dof 8 any southern man con- ; 
cede that the squatters in a Territory, the common i 
property of all the people of all the States, whetli- \ 
er many or few, as soon as they receive a Territo- ■ 
rial government, have the sovereign right to de- 
clare that slavery shall never exist in the Territory, 
and to de; rive the slaveholder of the right of go- 
ing ii.io the Territcry with Lis property? A more 
objectionable doctrine to southern opinions, and a 
more dangerous one to southern rights cannot be 
proposed short of the impossibility of the legal ex- 
tension of slavery in any mode beyond its ancient 
Ihnits. But, if Mr. Buchanan docs not assert this 
individual principle of squatter sovereignty, he 
must derive the power in the people of the Terri- 
tory from the act of Congress organizing the Ter- 
ritory ; and, if so, he asserts and maintains that 
•Congress has power itself to abolish slavery in the 
Territories. Take either view of the question and 
51r. Buchanan stands in direct antagonism to 
southern opinions and southern interests, as ex- 
pounded by the leaders of the Democratic party. 

Thus we see every variety of contradiction in 
the platforms of these two parties — the Demo- 
cratic and Republican — and the recorded history 
and antecedents of their respective candidates, 
proving that either the parties or their candi- 
dates have no regard for the platforms of prin- 
ciples established and proclaimed to the coun- 
try, but use them only as a means of party success, 
which, once attained, they will be free to execute 
their designs of personal aggrandizement by the 
aid of governmental support and pecuniary re- 
wards from official salaries. For if these parties 
take their nominees on iheir antecedents, they (the 
parties) surrender their avowed principles ; and if 
these candidates serve their parties on the terms 
of accepting the platforms, they abandon their 
long-cherished opinions, surrender their individu- 
uality, and become the automatons of party ambi- 
tion. 

The question which every citizen must decide 
for himself is, will he confide the affairs of the gov- 
ernment to either of these extreme and contradic- 
tory political party leaders ? The responsibility 
will rest upon the people, and Lhave all contidence 
in their intelhgence and patriocsm. What I have 
said in the short space of time allowed me is noth- 
ing but an index to some portions of the political 
history of parties, and can only profit those who 



may feel anxious to pursue the investigation, and 
learn the true condition of affairs, and the purpo- 
ses of political parties. Such investigation is ne- 
cessary to the proper discharge of the important 
duty of American electors. And I urge every 
man, who may hear these observations, to look to 
the manner in which he discharges the sacred trust 
of sovereignty. 

Sir, I have already indicated my intention to 
give my support to Millard Fihmore, not only be- 
cause his opinions harmonize with my own on the 
great questions involved in the propositions main- 
tained by the American party — questions which I 
regard of immense magnitude, and which would 
be a sufficient inducement to elicit mj support; but 
also for the reason, that I believe in the moderate 
counsels of such a man, there is confidence and 
security ; and that his election would be the best 
guarantee of the perpetuity of our glorious Union, 
the preservation of which is paramount to the 
temporary success of any abstract political opin- 
ions; and to accomplish this end, we should sacri- 
fice upon the altar of our connnon country, all 
personal ambition, pride of opinion, and the de- 
lights and emoluments of party triumph. Mr. Fill- 
more has been tried in the severest crisis of do- 
mestic disorder; and whatever may have been his 
private notions as to the abstract propriety of par- 
ticular institutions, or the constitutional powers of 
Congress, he acknowledged tlie binding obliga- 
tions of the wri ten constitution — the great char- 
ter of pohtical freedom ; and directed every effort 
of a strong mind and patriotic heart, to the resto- 
ration of the peace and tranquillity of the public 
mind, and the preservation of the Union of the 
States as the palladium of liberty. 

All just-minded men acknowledge the merits of 
his public services, and cftmmend, in the highest 
terms, his national patriotism. How impotent is 
party rage directed against such a man — deeply 
seated in the grateful affections of a confiding peo- 
ple. The javelins of party malevolence can nei- 
ther disturb his repose nor obliterate the lively re- 
collections of his eminent political virtues. On all 
sides we have already witnessed the spontaneous 
manifestations of public esteem, but which will in- 
crease in magnitude aud power in geometrical pro- 
portion as the public mind becomes awakened to 
a sense of the impending crisis and the weight of 
popular responsibility. 

I do not like to admit that this glorious Union 
of States is in danger, nor to appeal to the people 
to save their country from the inconceivable mise- 
ries of disunion and civil strife. I will not allow 
myself to contemplate any favor to such a revolt- 
ing proposition as long as the Constitution re- 
mains. It has been asked by gentlemen from the 
North, on this floor, if the South intend to dissolve 
the Union, if that section should be defeated in the 
presidential contest ? I can answer for one loyal 
Southern man, and I beheve for the always faith- 
ful and Union loving State of Kentucky — that the 
mere success of a party in the election, would be 
no cause even for the contemplation of such a ca- 
lamity. No, sir, the people have a right to choose 
whom they desire, for President, under the Con- 
stitution ; and the exercise of constitutional rights 
shall never be regarded by me as caus'j /or dis- 
union. You ask me, how much the South wil bear ? 



IT) 



I tell you that all true patriots, North and Soulli, 
will submit to the will of the majority on all sub-" 
jectti which, by the ConsJtitution have been eou- 
fidcd to tiu> Federal CJovernment, whilst the t'on- 
stitutioii remains. Reason alone sliould be em- 
ployed to resist legislative and (larty injustice; but 
if ihu designs of parties, purely seetioiuil, sliould 
be carrieil < ut, the ("onstitution trodden vnider 
foot, and, instead of the aetion of a majority, in ae- 
eordanee with its grants and limitations, you inau- 
gurate the unbridled will of a majority — then, 
sir, the fate of the Heput)lie will be forever sealed, 
and tiie historic chapter of American iiuiei)end- 
emce closed in the tragic scenes of civil war. Tlie 
fnrtain fall.'", and I have no desire to imagine the 



horrors behind the scenes; and but tew 
the heart to look upon them, if the 
opened to their gaze. 

The fru.^mentury sections of a once bri.- 
litieal star in the western Ininisphere, mi; 
for a time their feeble rays over tlie dark j 
Kastern lyraiiny and, despotism, but their 
lar and eccentric motions wouhl soon pr(' 
mighty coufliet, in which their lustre would i 
ever extinguished. The opulent and fasv'^' ' 
classes might enjoy seasons of tran<|uillity and\^ 
riods of apparent prosperity, but tin- liojie of tin- 
toilini; millions, for themselves and their posterity, 
would be buried forever beneath tin' nii'i-" of .» 
once free and glorious Union. 




ciiirrLAi; 



The undersigned, members of the Nalional 
Jixecu five Covimittee of the Aimrkan Farti/, 
have pleasure in announcing to the people, that 
satisfactory arrangements (or the future main- 
tenance of the Amfrican Organ, as an au- 
thoritative exponent and advocate of ihi' prin- 
ciples of the Atnericari Party, have l)een 
completed. 

Recommencing its labors, under these new 
auspices, the undersigned cheerfully commend 



the AMiiRiCAX Okcja.s to the generous con- 
dence of the American Partii, in every sec- 
tion of the Confederacy, and they hope its 
columns may command the widest circula- 
tion. 

IlUMrilREV MAHSUAIL, of Ky. 

SOLOMON G. HAVKN, of N. Y. 

J. M"lli;iSON llARiil.^, of M .. 

JAfMl! lUlOOM, Pe.u:. 
\VA.sni.Nt.i.' . » rrv, \). C, M;iy iatt., \ti)ii. 



PROSPECTUS OF THE AMERICAN OR(;A^ . 

The American Organ having been adopted, by the Executive Committee of the Anu.i- 
nan members of Co7igress, as the central organ of the American part ij, the proprietor, with 
A view to its general and extensive circulation thioughout the country, h:i.s determined, on 
consultation with his political friends, to furnish the same to subscribers, whose subscriptions 
arc remitted after May ls^ and during the months of May, June, and Jidy, ou the following 
reduced terms, to wit : 

2'erms of the Daily American Organ. 

Daily Organ, for one year - - $3 00 | Daily Organ, for six months - $2 00 

^Tenns of the Weekly American Organ. 



Weekly Organ, for one year, to single 
subscribers - - - - $1 50 

Weekly Orgtin, for six months, to single 
subscribers . . - - 00 

Wnkly Organ, for one year, to clubs of 



eight or more subscribers, each $1 25 
Weekly Organ, for six months, to clubs 

of eight or more subscribers, each 75 

Weekly Organ, for the campaign^ to wit: 

from July lit to lo.'A N'ovember, each 50 



All subscribers whose subscription? have been remitted during the month of May, have 
bftea charged only at above rates. 




ibrra to ' 

they are 

ower 

pht 

U 

ittij 

>g 

/<i 

to- 



iM< 



